OBJECTIVES: To compare aspiration and sclerotherapy using sodium tetradecylsulfate (STDS) with open hydrocelectomy in the treatment of hydroceles with regard to safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic hydroceles were prospectively enrolled in an aspiration and sclerotherapy protocol between October 1998 and June 2000. Patients in this group underwent percutaneous aspiration followed by sclerotherapy with an STDS-based solution. This group was compared with a group of patients chosen consecutively who underwent hydrocelectomy between December 1996 and August 1999. Primary outcome measures included patient satisfaction and procedural success. Secondary outcome measures included complications and comparative costs. RESULTS: A total of 27 patients with 28 hydroceles were enrolled in the aspiration and sclerotherapy protocol and compared with 24 patients with 25 hydroceles in the hydrocelectomy group. Mean follow-up for the aspiration and sclerotherapy group and hydrocelectomy group was 8.9 and 16.4 months, respectively. Patient satisfaction was 75% for aspiration and sclerotherapy and 88% for hydrocelectomy. The overall success rate for aspiration and sclerotherapy was 76% compared with 84% for hydrocelectomy. The complication rate was only 8% in the aspiration and sclerotherapy group, but 40% in the hydrocelectomy group. Comparative costs per procedure demonstrated that hydrocelectomy was almost ninefold more expensive than aspiration and sclerotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of hydroceles, aspiration and sclerotherapy with STDS represents a minimally invasive approach that is simple, inexpensive, and safe but less effective than hydrocelectomy. Aspiration and sclerotherapy is a viable first-line therapeutic option in the management of hydroceles.
OBJECTIVES: To compare aspiration and sclerotherapy using sodium tetradecylsulfate (STDS) with open hydrocelectomy in the treatment of hydroceles with regard to safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness. METHODS:Patients with symptomatic hydroceles were prospectively enrolled in an aspiration and sclerotherapy protocol between October 1998 and June 2000. Patients in this group underwent percutaneous aspiration followed by sclerotherapy with an STDS-based solution. This group was compared with a group of patients chosen consecutively who underwent hydrocelectomy between December 1996 and August 1999. Primary outcome measures included patient satisfaction and procedural success. Secondary outcome measures included complications and comparative costs. RESULTS: A total of 27 patients with 28 hydroceles were enrolled in the aspiration and sclerotherapy protocol and compared with 24 patients with 25 hydroceles in the hydrocelectomy group. Mean follow-up for the aspiration and sclerotherapy group and hydrocelectomy group was 8.9 and 16.4 months, respectively. Patient satisfaction was 75% for aspiration and sclerotherapy and 88% for hydrocelectomy. The overall success rate for aspiration and sclerotherapy was 76% compared with 84% for hydrocelectomy. The complication rate was only 8% in the aspiration and sclerotherapy group, but 40% in the hydrocelectomy group. Comparative costs per procedure demonstrated that hydrocelectomy was almost ninefold more expensive than aspiration and sclerotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of hydroceles, aspiration and sclerotherapy with STDS represents a minimally invasive approach that is simple, inexpensive, and safe but less effective than hydrocelectomy. Aspiration and sclerotherapy is a viable first-line therapeutic option in the management of hydroceles.